It is perfectly possible that my post of yesterday was wrong. It is also possible that the firestorm generated by ConservativeHome and by this morning's newspapers has helped convince the party that David Cameron's EPP pledge has to be kept.

What matters is, of course, that we have ended up in the right place. David Cameron's credibility will be intact and Conservative MEPs will leave the EPP. William Hague will make an announcement next month.

ConservativeHome understands that the spat between the Czech ODS party and Poland's Law and Justice party is being repaired and that a new Eurosceptic, pro-reform group will be possible. For the first time in the history of the European Parliament there will be a substantial grouping in the Parliament, dedicated to loosening and reforming the Brussels apparatus.

Consideration had been given to announcing 'exit' next month but delaying actual exit until the next European Elections. That option has been shelved because, as one Polish politician told the Conservative Party - you can't announce that you are divorcing your wife in three years' time and still expect her to cook your dinner every evening. [The Poles have a very traditional view of marriage!] A pre-announcement would be unacceptable to EPP partners.

The EPP fears that the departure of the UK Conservatives will be the beginning of the end of their grouping. A pivotal moment may come at the end of this year when Hans-Gert Poettering leaves the EPP leadership to assume the presidency of the Parliament. With no obvious successor to Herr Poettering a power struggle inside the EPP may cause the group to fracture. At that point the new Tory-ODS-L&J grouping may be able to attract Civic Platform (Poland), Moderate Coalition (Sweden) or the People's Party (Spain).

Comments

Brilliant news to finally hear from a front bencher that the plans are in no way being shelved. Hopefully now, we'll all be able to settle down and discuss a few policy positions as opposed to where we are sitting in the European Parliament chamber.

I hope you're right Tim.Being straight and honest with people is for me far more important and will in time attract more votes to the Conservative party than any spat with Merkel and the federalists within the EPP.Perhaps Hague should now start preparing the ground as to why we want to leave the EPP by explaining to the Conservative party and the electorate at large what the EPPs policies are.This would blunt Labours' attacks on us to choosing to sit with extremists etc in the future.

I'm very happy about this! I'm looking forward to seeing what this new group is capable of and whether it can change the climate of debate in Brussels for the better.

But one thing I'm quite sure: The Swedish Moderate Party (which is its correct name in English - "Moderata" makes no sense in English or Swedish) will not join a Eurosceptic group - because it is not Eurosceptic and supports both the euro and the Constitution.

You can see why the EPP wish to stop the Conservatives leaving at all costs. It's a bit like when career MPs say to new MPs, "you should do this or come along to this talk or event because it will be good for you." In reality will only really benefit the career MP - and the same is the case with the EPP.

If the Conservative leave the EPP and form a new grouping, I am certain that this will encourage many other discontented MEPs to leave the EPP. All it takes is the first step.

Interesting comments by the Editor. If the sources are impeccable, this is a strange contradiction of a story. Nothing against the source but does anyone else think that maybe it was a feeler to test reaction by CCO? They out out a hint that maybe they will abandon the pledge, see the reaction and decide theres no need for anything more as no damage is actually caused and the point is made. If anything they get a good days publicity due to the re-setting of the pledge to enforce it, which comforts the support of the Right, which might be feeling antsy in recent times by things like the A-List.

I'm sorry, but the links you give do not suggest that the Law and Justice party have said that. Also, the links you give are hardly neutral (or even factual with the case of Wikipedia.) It's a bit like someone giving links from the Guardian and Socialist workers' news saying that "all Conservative party members are racist" or somesuch.

However, even if the Law and Justice party had suggested such, it is their opinion, and they are perfectly entitled to it - or do you believe it is distasteful to have opinions that are different to your own?

Jacob, you probably know better than me but the full name of the Swedish moderates is Moderata samlingspartiet - Moderate Coalition party, but they seem to like calling themselves Moderaterna.

Barroso's Social Democratic party in Portugal is another feasible ally of decent size. Most of the other Eurosceptic's are nationalists in the Union for Europe of the Nations but they are small in number and all seem to have some sort of baggage.

"However, even if the Law and Justice party had suggested such, it is their opinion, and they are perfectly entitled to it - or do you believe it is distasteful to have opinions that are different to your own?"

Oh dear. Is that best the you can do? Where have I ever suggested I find it distatsteful that someone disagrees with me? My question, which was clear enough I think, was whether *you* think that opinion is distateful? Clearly, I do think it is distateful, yes. I'd go so far to say I find it deeply offensive.

Now, rather than rubbish the sources of the information (although your likening of The Guardian to SWP News made me smile - do you *really* think they're the same?!), why not come up with a little bit of evidence to refute the allegation?

PP were with us before we joined EPP back in the late 80's but left us to join EPP after which we became associates - we never joined - so getting PP involved in this seems to me to be essential. I would be delighted but surprised to find Moderata from Sweden in but this is a positive post and encouraging.Welldone to our leadership. LOVE the Polish quote about divorce!

To respond to "nopaedos" or not to respond ... ah well. Sad f***. Dream on matey, your time is gone.

I don't like anything I've read about Law and Justice. Even the name is pathetic, isn't it? I mean, "vote for law and justice or vote for .. umm, no law? no justice?". I really hate pathetic false dichotomies like that, sign of a flaccid brain.

Gareth is losing no argument, Chris Palmer, because statements of aesthetic preference like yours are clearly immune to logical discussion. You might quite legitimately find it acceptably tasteful to equate homosexuality with paedophilia; you'll just have to find it equally acceptable if others find it tasteful to equate small-minded losers with dog shit.

Chris Palmer: - There are many Muslims that live and work in this country, who hate our western world and loath everyone around them. Why do they come here to work then, and if they hate it so much that they’re prepared to listen to or preach messages of hate? Muslims do not want to integrate into our society – that much is obvious, and the longer that Muslims are protected and shielded from criticism; the more difficult it will be in the future to create a harmonious society.

You are clearly ignorant. Fistly many of us many Muslims did not 'come here' - we were born here; we are British, and proud of it. Secondly, the majority of Muslims are well and truly integrated. You judge us all by a media caricature, and that just displays your own superficiality. Thirdly, many of us are openly critical of the extremists, but the media choose not to report it, so you don't hear of it. Fourthly, to equate all Muslims with a few extremists or terrorists is like judging the Roman Catholic Church by the activities of the IRA. You clearly do not know what you are talking about.

Yes Dizzy, but rarely. They normally interview Abu Hamza, and then Chris Palmer is confirmed in his bigotry. He does not understand the the overwhelming majority of Muslims repudiate Hamza. He judges Islam by this one extremist. I maintain, it is like judging the Vatican by the activities of Gerry Adams. He does not do so because they are white. Palmer is therefore racist.

Editor, "It is perfectly possible that my post of yesterday was wrong. It is also possible that the firestorm generated by ConservativeHome and by this morning's newspapers has helped convince the party that David Cameron's EPP pledge has to be kept." Luckily I listened to William Hague this morning so I did not get caught up in the firestorm today.

Sorry Dep. Ed. but Chris Palmer's blog makes such interesting reading. I feel duty bound to give one last insight into his views.

Under the charming title 'Maude sucks up to gays' we get this delightful diatribe on the perils of repealing Section 28.

" If the Thatcher Government and society had recognised homosexuality in the 1980’s, why would that have reduced the numbers of people who died from HIV? Homosexuals would have still been attempting rear-entry, whatever society or Government thought of them, and if anything, condoning such sexual relations would probably have increased the number of cases."

He goes no to muse, in a way too disgusting to repeat here, on the similarities between what he quaintly calls 'sodomy' and paedophilia.

I think they float the 'we're wobbling on quitting he EPP' story to light a firestorm to persuade the likes of K Clarke that there is really no alternative.

If they want us all spitting they know exactly how to trigger that response.

They still haven't quit the EPP but if the assurances are coming from the top, then we can believe them. Cameron seems to be a man of principle and values, so conning Conservatives into backing his leadership by promising an EPP exit seems most unlikely.

Graeme, confusing, I know, but follow the thread back and you'll see that I didn't compare homosexuals like yourself to paedophiles, and that, it was in fact, Gareth that said the Law and Justice party supposedly had.

I would have said that refusing to engage is a mark of defeat in itself, but there we go. Clearly we don't agree on that point.

Nadim, clearly you are jumping to conclusions. Perhaps their could have been a few less generalisations in that particular post. Sounded fine to me at the time though.

Islam is a faith Nadiam, how is that anything to do with race? Or is it perhaps you, like the Nazi's with the Jews, who confused race and religion. Perhaps in that respect, it is you who are racist? Certainly not I.

Gareth, as much as it is off-topic, I will continue to run with this. (I often gave Chad a hard enough time for similar reasons.) If you want to discuss this further Gareth or Nadim, do it on my blog.

I think he probably wasn't talking about people like you. Chris Palmer's only mistake was to miss out a few caveats, like, "large numbers of muslims", instead of simply "muslims" for example. Nevertheless, the sense of what he says is obvious: one cannot deny that there are *large numbers* of muslims with deeply disturbing views, and I don't think it is "racist" to which to point this out.

"There are "large numbers" of Catholics who support the IRA. He doesn't seem to want to talk about this. He goes for "brown skin". In that, he is racist." - Nadim

Excuse me Nadim, but let us get this straight as you fail to be going to my blog like I asked. I never said anything about "brown skin." If you are suggesting that all Muslims have "brown skin" then it is you would are racist.

"And I do not want to go to your bigoted blog. I prefer to discuss issues with moderate and intelligent people." - Nadim

Even though we have been twice asked not to in this thread by the Deputy Editor?

"do you think there is a political risk attached to being associated with a party which holds those views?"

Yes, although as others have pointed out when this issue has been discussed before, several of the EPP's constituent groups hold pretty similar opinions (eg, the Austrian Freedom Party, the Italian National Alliance).

As I said, in this type of political set up, one is bound to be allied to parties whose views on some subjects are pretty odd. The question is, what should matter most to us in the European Parliament? In my opinion, it is trying to halt, and then reverse, the move towards creating a single European state, and that means allying with people who share that aim.

I am a member of the Norwegian Conservative Party, and though, we are not in EU (lucky us!), we are associates of EPP. My party, sadly, is strongly pro-EU. I folow closely Swedish politics, and Moderata Samlingspartiet (Moderaterna) is a party strongly committed to EU and euro. I don´t think that Moderaterna will leave EPP. The Danes, Det Konservative Folkepartiet (Conservative Peoples Party) will not leave EPP either.

The Polish parties are strange, and are way to nationalistic and protectionist for my taste, but the Czechs are sound (Vaclav Klaus, the Czech president was a nThatcher heir when he was Prime Minister).

Partido Popular in Spain will also not leave the EPP, I think, as they are conservative and catholics, and have much in common with the christian-democrats who control EPP (the Belgian CD&V and German CDU/CSU).

"Anyway, back on topic, rather than talking about the substance of L&J's views, do you think there is a political risk attached to being associated with a party which holds those views?"

As I said before, it would be disappointing if we became associated with a party which held such warped views as homosexuality is akin to paedophilia, however I do not believe that is the case with Law and Justice.

With regards political risk, I think the biggest danger in this case is self-inflicted damage from people (like yourself) within the party trying to stoke up a controversy about something which, in terms of the bigger picture, is practically irrelevant.

The Law and Justice Party certainly have some odd views for those of us of a socially liberal Anglican disposition - it would be unfair however to simply say they equate homosexuality with paedophillia.

Their case is that, in line with traditional Catholic teaching, homosexuality is an example of deviant behaviour that can be 'corrected'. They have a 'hate the sin love the sinner' approach which requires them to try and teach people the 'error' of their ways.

I'd say give them about 60 years to grow up and they will have moved on from this sort of nonsense. If we're in the same grouping we should make sure we spend time persuading them that they are the ones who need to change. Perhaps we could get Peter Tatchell on the case to 'out' a few of their own gay members.

The Pope has recently condemned same-sex relationships, which may lead a person concerned about such matters to advocate leaving the EU (as many countries are Catholic in the EU) or at least loosen the union as per Conservative Party policy and the reason we want to leave the EPP and form a new group.

So let's get this clear then: are Gareth and Graeme Archer saying that all Roman Catholics and Muslims who accept the conservative teaching on homosexuality of both Islam and the Catholic Church are "bigots"? I do not agree with that teaching, but not being a a faux liberal, I prefer to make the counterargument... not indulge in crude abuse and vilification (just like the Left) of those I disagree with.

Chad is right. This is game-playing to keep everyone on board for as long as it matters (and certainly until after the by-elections coming up). In any case what is the possible hope of reform of the EU from within.

"Anyone who saw Hague on the tv this morning would have known this at 8.15 am as I posted earlier (and others with the Today link)."

That's not right. I listened and re-listened and there was no commitment to leave, only to make announcement at the end of July (which may well have been about leaving, but he didn't say). Given the track record of at a minimum always leaving wriggle-room, politicians' "horse's mouth" is not a reliable guide in itself.

Anyway, congratulations to Cameron and Hague for doing the right thing, whether or not they were quite so solid last night. I'm pleased with where we're at.

The more Cameron shows he will stick to his commitments (even the ones I don't approve of), the better I like him.